New Gun Bill Signed Into Law today (6/25/22)

[WillBrink]

I have not read the nuts and bolts of this bill to really comment yet, and forgive the source.

I can understand those who reject it outright due to who signed it etc, but "on paper" most of it does not sound terrible. Again, devil is the details and need to see what the specific lingo used, but so far, it's not totally worthless. Most concerning to me from what I see so far is red flag aspects, which can be used easily as a run around of Const Rights to remove guns minus any due process. Anyone read the actual bill?

Yes, I fully "get" the dislike of any win for those who's ultimate goal is to see us all disarmed, but we still have to work with what we have (and we now have this bill) and due to the massive win that was SCOTUS decision, those forces have been set back decades:


https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/polit...ill/index.html

[flenna]

Thank goodness, now we are really safe and there will be no more violent crimes. Just like tearing down statues and redesigning a syrup bottle label eliminated racism, criminals will now start obeying the NEW laws.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The glimmer of not-crap in this bill is:

It will, however, allow those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes to restore their gun rights after five years if they haven't committed other crimes.

The rest is dubious at best. Seems to devolve a lot of the issues to states, and you can guess that the bluest-blue states will use the money to make things worse with blatantly unconstitutional red flag laws, and the red states will either pass, or maybe, hopefully, do something useful.

Nowhere near as bad as what it could have been, of course.

After the SCOTUS decision all the state junk that exists now or is about to be added should be relatively easier to challenge in court.

[chuckman]

The appearance of 'doing something.' Kabuki theater.

[WillBrink]

The appearance of 'doing something.' Kabuki theater.

As always, depends on how it's actually enforced, etc, but some of it does not sound like all it does is harm law abiding gun owners per se or strictly feel good BS that only impacts the law abiding.

[Straight Shooter]

Ive not read it. IF... it contains the "red flag" laws I really believe thatll be eventually ruled unconstitutional.
Outside of that- this aint nothing. Theyve effectively done really NOTHING. What am I missing?
They went from outright banning most semi auto's...9mm's...standard cap mags, online ammo & gun sales, ect., to...expanded background checks?
They got NOTHING major they wanted, unless Im missing something. We all know theyll keep on, that aint breaking news. But for the Potato-in-Chief to act like he just signed another AWB...nah, he didnt. Blue states are gonna blue state until SCOTUS rules on their shit. Red states will red. As far as I can tell right now, nobody here cant do today, what they could do yesterday, last week, last year. Its all for show.

[ABNAK]

So it basically undoes the Lautenberg Law about domestic violence? After 5 years of course, but the Lautenberg BS was permanent up until now.

[Harpoon]

I don't see the part where it is mandatory for criminals to obey the law.

[utahjeepr]

Call me paranoid, but I just see a little more camel in the tent than there was yesterday. Not much more, and it's not terribly offensive, but sooner or later it leads to the whole camel if you let it continue.

As others have said, selective enforcement and idealogical lawfare is a thing. This is yet another potential tool in that direction.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It's a ratchet- a lot of states already had all this stuff. Mine does. So for most people its a nothing, maybe even a positive if you and and girlfriend went wrong.

Let them have this small victory(?) because the NY SCOTUS case far overweighs anything here. The new battle will be fighting to new tweaks that they will be allowed.

AWB and mag limit bans need to be struck down NOW. Don't send the pending cases back to lower courts, we need SCOTUS decisions that are clear on the issue. That way it is harder when in 5-10 years when the dems get a majority on the court, there is as little room for them to screw around with precedent.